Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy; it is dedicated to the invisible forces of the universe. Physics is a branch of science, dedicated to the motion of objects (subjects) in observable space.

The root of crisis in physics is that it is no more is based on experiments, but on ersatz-philosophy.

Am strongly in support of Copernicus.

To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.” ― Nicolaus Copernicus

Stephen I. Ternyik :

Dear Stephen: Thanks for your significant contribution to this discussion and the quote from Copernicus. I am being demonized and facing abuse in RG and elsewhere for decades, for publishing and speaking on these unpleasant truths! My published works based on the works and the ideas of Kepler, Leibniz and Hegel not only question the validity of (anti-Copernican) modern official cosmology, but points to an exact opposite dialectical cosmology and a universe, which is Infinite, Eternal and Ever-Changing - a stance for which Giordano Bruno was burnt alive on the Stake by the Inquisition! I have summarized my works in the following publication: (Please note, the preview shown in the following link may be enough to get a general perspective of this publication).

"Dialectics Not Metaphysics Of Nature: From The Quantum To The Cosmic":

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0BF5W9Q1N?asin=B0BF5W9Q1N&revisionId=9ebf1d7b&format=1&depth=1

Of all revolutions in the history of humanity, the Copernican revolution arising from his immortal work, ‘De revolutionibus orbium coelestium‘ , must be regarded as the greatest of all; because, on the one hand it opened the way for positive knowledge of the cosmos as opposed to previous mythologies and at the same time it freed Europe from blind faith and medieval despotism and nourished the Bourgeois democratic revolution.

But unfortunately for science and humanity, the Copernican revolution was short-lived and aborted at the behest of the ruling order and theology. And on the contrary, Geocentric cosmology in essence was brought back within a century by Newton’s one-sided theory of universal gravitational attraction; which is only valid on or near the surface of a cosmic body like the earth; but not beyond. Few centuries later, Albert Einstein sealed the deal, apparently for ever, with his esoteric theories of relativity.

The “Big Bang” theory of creation, an expanding (even with accelerated expansion) universe etc., that were the outcome of Newton's and Einstein's theories, pointed to an anti-Copernican Geocentric cosmology! Any anomaly or new observed phenomena can be easily accommodated in these metaphysical theories, by adding some arbitrary parameters or by assuming unreal “dark/black” entities; to make these theories as absolute truths. The theories of official cosmology are being "proved" for over hundred years by using dubious and contrived experiments and deceptive or even false claims; motivated by the lure of fame, fortune and funds to the scientists concerned. This started with the “proof” of general relativity (GR) by the British astronomer Arthur Eddington, from the alleged bending of starlight by the sun – a claim that brought an obscure Einstein to world fame. In fact, modern official theoretical physicists claim to be very close to achieving a “Theory of Everything” of the universe!

The implications of expanding (or even accelerated expansion) is based on the false notion (as shown by the famous astronomer Halton (Chip) Arp and others) that the redshifts of the galaxies depend on their distance from the earth; and a contrived "Hubble’s Law", which Hubble (a colleague of Arp) himself rejected as invalid.; "… if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results."("Effects of Red Shifts on the Distribution of Nebulae" by E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936)

The implications of Newton's and Einstein’s theories of cosmology are not only Geocentric; but as my friend Chip Arp showed, even the "Finger of God" (who supposedly "created" the universe through a "Big Bang") points towards the earth!

"Fingers of God in an Expanding Universe":

https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe

"These cluster elongations toward the observer have been noticed in other regions of the sky and, causing some inquietude, been dubbed "Fingers of God". The reason for unease is obvious. The fingers are pointing to the conclusion that we live in some special place in the Universe. Very anti-Copernican."

Nicolaus Copernicus died on May 24, 1543 in what is now Frombork, Poland. Largely unknown outside of academic circles, he died the year his major work was published, saving him from the outrage of some religious leaders who later condemned his heliocentric view of the universe as heresy.

One of those critics was Martin Luther, the infamous Vatican critic who was one of the founders of the Reformation. Luther stated that “This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth.” The Vatican did eventually ban “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” in 1616.

Citation from: https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/nicolaus-copernicus

The concise study of the history of science , dear Abdul Malek , reveals that greater breakthroughs are done by outsiders as also TS Kuhn confirms in his ruling paradigm theory. In this sense, official science works by social group think, pressure and exclusion (e.g. from office, academic promotion and employment, exile,…).

——-—

Halton C. Arp, a provocative son of American astronomy whose dogged insistence that astronomers had misread the distances to quasars cast doubt on the Big Bang theory of the universe and led to his exile from his peers and the telescopes he loved, died on Dec. 28 in Munich. He was 86.

Citation from:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/science/space/halton-c-arp-astronomer-who-challenged-big-bang-theory-dies-at-86.html

————————-

With respect to the dialectics of nature (and humans), which I do regard cyclical and not linear, Friedrich Engels was (imo) closer than Dr. Marx to the dialectical and historical motion of non-living and living matter.

17 January MMXXIII

When are we going to start talking about the differences between scientists and philosophers?

ASJ

Science is about physical objects; philosophy is often about that, but it is also about abstract objects (if they exist), dear Anthony St. John

In this sense, intellectual puzzling is more philosophical, while real problem-solving is more scientific or science-based. With respect to the query of Abdul Malek , the methodical dividing line between physics (science) and metaphysics (philosophy) does not seem to exist in certain cosmological approaches, which are derived (maybe, even subconsciously) from culturally dominating theological ideas (e.g. created universe vs. eternal universe) that are claimed to be objective facts.

————-—

Life cannot wait until the sciences may have explained the universe scientifically. We cannot put off living until we are ready. The most salient characteristic of life is its coerciveness: it is always urgent, "here and now" without any possible postponement. Life is fired at us point blank.

The poet begins where the man ends. The man's lot is to live his human life, the poet's to invent what is nonexistent.

Don Ortega y Gasset

Anthony St. John> “When are we going to start talking about the differences between scientists and philosophers?”

I have an answer for this question as stated below. But I am afraid both the scientists and the philosophers will hate me even more for this and there will be even more vigorous efforts to get me kicked out of RG!

In my opinion, both theoretical natural science and philosophy (in their conventional meaning of the terms) came to an end with Hegel’s dialectics. Because, if it was the aim of conventional theoretical science and philosophy to know the final, ultimate etc., truth (the “first cause”) of the world; Hegel’s dialectics in spite of his (idealist) “Absolute Idea”, shows that this aim of science and philosophy can never be fulfilled. Because, man can know the world, only as a never-ending historical process and in an iterative way, but always limited by the historical stage of evolution. Please see:

"The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science" :

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Philosophy in its new meaning as dialectics, is now a part of the various positive sciences; intuiting, evaluating, guiding; summarizing the empirical search for positive knowledge in the various branches of the sciences, both in a single individual or in a collective formation.

But what’s of post-Hegelian philosophy? If natural science, in spite of its phenomenal achievements still finds itself begging at the door of theology, it has the satisfaction of seeing philosophy sink lower still. Modern philosophy maintains (as Engels put it) "a pseudo existence in the state appointed academia, where, position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers occupy the chairs of philosophy". Instead of looking for profound truths in the wide world of nature and human society like their predecessors, these namesakes either work openly as the apologists (like Karl Popper, for example) of monopoly capitalism or look inwards to “self” (existentialism) or to language (linguistic philosophy) etc. ad nauseam to hunt for absolute truth.

Stephen Hawking is absolutely right when he says: “In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: Did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, ‘The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.’ What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!”. (“A Brief History of Time”, Bantam Books, p. 174-175 (1990)

But it is modern natural science that is hiding its bankruptcy and confusion under the mystery of mathematics and like an ostrich is burying its head in the sand of causality and determinism. The philosophy of Heraclitus, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hegel, Marx and Engels means nothing to it. Modern natural science, has come under total subjugation of monopoly capital, and has dishonoured the great tradition set by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Darwin. A natural science, which was once inspired by the revolutionary bourgeoisie and created these giants of science, has now become a lap dog of reactionary monopoly capital. Modern natural science wants to bring back the absolutist and obscurantist science of feudalism to serve the interest of moribund monopoly capital. It is churning up a “complete theory” of exquisite mathematical beauty and of absolute validity for all eternity, a theory, which no meaning as positive knowledge.

Like modern official philosophy, present day natural science has reduced its scope to mere application of the absolute truth it has attained in the realm of nature. Only those facts that conform to this truth are of interest to science, those that do not, remains in the realms of the Creator or at best are Kantian “thing in itself”. Thus, we have not only a “comedown from the great tradition of philosophy” but a comedown from the great tradition of natural science too.

“In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself.” Henry Wllace

Great points made by Abdul Malek , e.g. Modern philosophy maintains (as Engels put it) "a pseudo existence in the state appointed academia, where, position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers occupy the chairs of philosophy".

Am not so sure about that following argument on Popper as his work is more limited to the rules of scientific methodology; I do regard Popper, Lakatos, Feyerabend and the like as pioneers of a modern philosophy of science.

------------------------------

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.

John Maynard Keynes

Stephen I. Ternyik : Stephen: I could not read the article you linked to nytimes; because it is behind a paywall; but official science seems to pretend that someone named Halton. C. Arp did not even exist, even though some 340 galaxies are named as 'Arp Galaxies'. Arp's name will slowly vanish even there, as the names of some of these galaxies are now being changed under an NGC numbering system.

Chip Arp was the only noble man and model scientist of many of some fame (whom I approached), who supported my 'dialectical' physics and cosmology and helped me to get some recognition; through many years of our interaction. He praised my following article in "Apeiron" (against the Big Bang" theory), as 'superb'. "Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies :

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

He always encouraged me to pursue my dialectical approach, as the hand written note in the attached file would show. In the last paragraph he wrote: “Monopoly capitalism vs. desire for knowledge and curiosity about how we and the world works. Fear vs. courage. Is our historical base line long enough to know which will prevail? The galaxies and quasars make me somewhat hopeful. Keep going " H.C. Arp. In Arp, we lost the Galileo of modern times - also a big personal loss for me!

Even in exile in Munich, where he got some refuge in the nearby Max-Planck Institute at Garching, other scientists avoided contact with him. Chip told me during a visit to his residence in Munich, that he only met with some other scientists of the Institute, while playing tennis!

Many thanks for sharing, dear Abdul Malek , this document and part of contemporary history of science !

There has been a (long) period of time during which "scientists" and "philosophers" did not distinguish from each other, both of them exploring both sides of the mistery, the unknown, the Universe.

Such a period - which lasted until not long ago - basically coincided with the ancient, classical (Greek) conception of stechyometric science, to measure for understanding. The word was being studied by (mathematical) sciences "katà metròn", everything was reduced to a measure that made it understandable.

That was until when, in the Baroc period, the abstract thinking found its way to breakthrough. The research about the infinite, the zero, the abstract speculation - Gauss, Leibnitz, etc. - tore open a completely new dimension for scientific and philosophical speculation.

From a Geocentric conception - consistent with the idea that "I, the observer" cannot be other than at the centre, left ground to the Heliocentric theory - things are the way they are, regardless of my role in their orgnization.

In a way, the pragmatical division of Aristotile's bibliography, the books concerning the Physics being those who came before the others discussing about abstract, moral concepts - that were following those on the Physics, and therefore were MetaPhysics, beyond the Physics- came to have a real sense.

Triggering, automatically, the question of epistemology, the validity of the search of truth made thorugh scientism.

At the same time, back again to the classical age: the distinction between Gods and Humans was about the capacity to know and understand the truth, unlimited for the first ones, defined and restricted for the latter. For mankind, aspiring to knowledge was the pity of hybris, the presumtpion to be similar to the Gods. The syrens were among the custodians of the border line: their song attracted the humans to cross the line - just so as to lose them.

Such a tradition was progressively abandoned when Socrates started to affirm that men shoud make use of logics to understand things and search for the Good, making tabula rasa of prior traditional knowledge and prejudice.

Socrates killed the syrens!.

The Positivism and the Illuminism made the rest, bringing current stream of thinking to believe blindly to (the wanna-be) science regardless of any limits, any ethics, any border between Physics and MetaPhysics.

The Man started playing with the idea of being a God himself; relativism put him back to the center again. And everyone may see by himslef how well (or badly) that concept reflects on the solidity of moral values nowadays

Stephen I. Ternyik : I would like to make few points on some of the issues you raised in your thoughtful posts above. I hope some others following this forum would add some more on this discussion.

Your statement. “In this sense, official science works by social group think, pressure and exclusion (e.g. from office, academic promotion and employment, exile,…)” , is a profound one and corresponds the famous statement of Marx and Engels in the ‘German Ideology’: “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relations, the dominant material relations grasped as ideas; hence of the relations, which make one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. … ”

With all due respect, I disagree with your notion that ‘the dialectics of nature (and humans), which I do regard cyclical and not linear’. Dialectical development can neither be linear, is which case it would be more or less deterministic, nor it can be cyclic. A cyclic process would require a starting point like Big Bang creation by some subjective force like God, no matter how far back in time and also a repeat at the initial point to begin another cycle and so on for ever. If anything has a beginning, in principle it cannot be infinite and eternal! Please see my article: Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Without the knowledge of the quantum phenomena, which Hegel only very dimly and in an obscure way anticipated through his primary contradiction, “Being-Nothing”, resolving to a “Becoming”; nothing definitive could be said about the ontological question of the universe. In fact, a position similar to your one was also held by Marx and Engels based on the scientific knowledge of their time. The views of Marx and Engels on ontology and cosmology and on later developments in physics were of more restricted scope. As far as I am aware, they avoided saying anything about Hegel’s ontological contradiction “Being-Nothing” in absence of any scientific basis. But this is due to the state of natural science at their time. Thermodynamics by that time was brought to some level of sophistication and Quantum Mechanics, which was to dominate natural science in later years, was totally unknown at their time. The Laws of Thermodynamics, particularly the Law of Conservation of Energy were accepted as an article of faith.

Marx and Engels were very much influenced by classical physics and the concept of entropy and the works of Clausius (1822-1888) and Helmholtz (1821-1831). They were troubled by the view of the eventual heat death of the universe as predicted by thermodynamics, when entropy will reach a maximum value by the total conversion of all forms of energy into heat so that no energy will be available for useful work or for the differentiation of motion for all eternity. They vehemently rejected the notion of such an outcome because it violates the Laws of Dialectics. They seemed to prefer the idea of an eternally repeated succession of worlds in infinite time in which entropy is alternately diminished by some yet unknown natural processes, and the universe gets a new life to start another cycle. It is not the fault of Marx and Engels that they could not provide a more forceful dialectical view of the universe, when natural science at that time could only predict a pessimistic end of the universe in a heat death and Quantum Mechanics and the subatomic world did not yet even make their appearance.

In my works on quantum electrodynamics (QED) and particularly based on Dirac’s ideas, I have attempted to extend Hegel’s philosophy of space and time and the ontological contradiction “Being-Nothing” to the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, where virtual (and ghostly) matter-antimatter pairs continuously pop-up and immediately go out of existence (as Being-Nothing). Some of these virtual particles can become real through a process known as “quantum tunnelling” or where their mass equivalent of energy is available, like in the core of the existing galaxies. Please see my articles "Breeding Galaxies:, "The Philosophy of Space - Time" etc., cited above in my comments.

I would also differ with your view of the philosophers of science like Karl Popper. As a turn-coat “Marxist”, Popper was very valuable for Western monopoly capitalism during the cold war as a propaganda tool, as were philosophers of the Vienna Circle and the Frankfort Group. Popper in particular gave benediction to the esoteric theories of physics specially Einstein’s relativity and suggested tricks for their validity and “proofs” in terms of “falsifiability”, “predictability”, “proofs” etc.,; which are now used by official science with impunity to justify their claims of “Big Bang” creation, dark/black cosmic monsters etc. Popper’s criteria for the validity of esoteric theories and positive knowledge are false. “Falsifiability” for example touted as fundamental criteria of a scientific theories has no meaning for an esoteric theory like “General Relativity” (GR), as it can never be falsified. Because, you can add a new parameter to the theory or invoke dark/black entities as the need arise to make it valid!. So, until you can falsify the theory (which is impossible), it remains valid for ever! Can anyone “falsify” the theory that God exists as an omnipotent and omniscient being?

It is a fact that science and scientists play a vital part in the class struggle and conflicts of modern societies, Abdul Malek . In this sense, after the great bourgeois revolutions, most philosophers and scientists emerged from the bourgeois strata of society, i.e. access to higher education was limited for people from a real working-class background. The nomenclature of so called communist countries was not very different, if we analyze the membership structure of academia.

My central point is that I do respect the intellectual work of Wittgenstein, although he was from a top-bourgeois background; this refers also to Marx, etc.

My experience of over 40 years in worker education does not match with the propagated theories of class consciousness, i.e. people generally do even support the structures under which they suffer.

From my empirical knowledge, I have to discern that the motion of human history behaves very irrational, despite ongoing rationalization of productive forces; this is due to the nature of the human psyche and not metaphysics.

With respect to modern cosmology, it is for me more a branch of metaphysics than physics.

My personal decision: I don't wanna fight windmills like Don Quixote

Renato Conti: Thanks for your impressive and erudite comment on Greek philosophy, metaphysics, positivism etc. Indeed, physics in terms of classical materialism originated (in my view) with Aristotle, which Newton (the assumed father of physics) later distorted to metaphysics (as stated above) with the incorporation of mathematical idealism into his theory of celestial gravitation. This can be discerned from the very first sentence of the Foreword of Newton’s Principia, “Now that (since Bacon) the substantial forms (of the Aristotelians) have been abandoned from natural philosophy, mathematics should replace them to the maximum possible extent.”

The revolutionary transition of Aristotle’s materialism from the mathematical idealism of the early Greeks, particularly that of Plato was brilliantly depicted by Raphael in his fresco of ‘Scuola di Atene’, where the central figures - an old, uncertain and apparently confused Plato points his fingers to the heavens but young and confident Aristotle gestures to the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens#/media/File:Sanzio_01_Plato_Aristotle.jpg

You mainly wrote about one one stream of philosophy originating from the early Greeks, which Hegel called ‘the view of understanding" or Metaphysics, originating with Parmenides. I wish you would say something about the other (dialectically opposite) stream that originated with near contemporary Heraclitus, which Hegel termed as “the view of reason” or dialectics – the main essence of this discussion.

Dear colleagues,

wouldn't it be time - in this day and age - to once and for all give up the old dichotomic distinction of "physics" vers. "metaphysics"? In my view, our scientific (more generally: scholarly) endeavors have reached a stage at which it no longer seems to make much sense to distinguish between empirically observable "reality" on one hand and the realm of the big, ultimate, "last" questions on the other. Clearly, as humans, we do not as yet have a comprehensive and all-encompassing description and explanation of the universe/cosmos, i.e., of "reality" or of "all there is", but I do think we have come far enough to now all (physicists, cosmologists, epistemologists, ontologists, philosophers...) join forces to try to tackle some of those big stalemates in our world view such as the contradiction between the microcosm/the quantum world and the macrcosm/Einsteinian relativity and gravity, the Big Bang mystery and so on and so forth... All I am saying is: Let us not be divided by (disciplinary) lables, but let us all work together towards a common goal - to understand the world!

A side note on Abdul's interpretation of the wonderful "School of Athens": I am personally not so pessimistic about the Plato being depicted there. His notion of the "realm of ideas" - as encapsulated so brilliantly in his cave analogy - may one day make a surprising return...

Best,

Julius

Dear Julius Riese,

“A side note on Abdul's interpretation of the wonderful "School of Athens": I am personally not so pessimistic about the Plato being depicted there. His notion of the "realm of ideas" - as encapsulated so brilliantly in his cave analogy - may one day make a surprising return...”

Said “surprising return” is found in Hoffman’s research translating Plato’s “cave analogy” to today’s “desktop analogy” relative to the hard problem of consciousness, the common link between physicists, cosmologists, epistemologists, ontologists, philosophers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

Dear Michael,

many thanks for providing this lead. I will watch the video over the coming weekend. I agree that consciousness and sentience are some more of those fundamental mysteries and conundrums we have encountered. However, whether the problem of human consciousness may, indeed, constitute the "missing link" between these different scientific/scholarly endeavors, I am not sure. But I will watch Hoffman and hopefully we can continue the conversation then.

Best,

Julius

Abdul Malek, Sir, I am elated to share my thoughts in this particular respect.

Heraclitus was known to his immediate successors as "ὁ σκοτεινός", the dark thinker, he himslelf being little or no confident that his writings could have been properly understood by the other people. And only fragments of his wrtings reached our age, with significant missing parts that make even harder any attempt to put the things together and work out a univoque line of thinking.

Hegel was probably the first (and the sole?) who tried the effort of reconstructing the puzzle of Heraclitean thinking, filling the gaps and forcing a consistent conclusion to be found (There is no proposition of the Heraclitean theory that I didn't accommodate in my Logic).

The focus of that all may be found in the power of the Logos (which always is) in the context of a continuous becoming of everything. Physical and apparently metaphysical universe were thought to be constanlty changing (evolving? developping? rotating?), the Logos is the One, the Archimedes focal point where (and when) everything coincides, belongs to the same nature (physis) and participates, in that extent, to the divine spirit.

Without in any even marginal manner limiting the conception of Hegel, though, it sounds pretty much like wat law scholars would call a "petition of principle". Hegel needed a justification for his whole system, a glue susceptible of keeping together the trinary dialectics (as opposed to Kant's binary one) and the simultneous pre-existence of the Whole to the individual person and their sharing the same nature. He found convenient to rely on the Heraclitean Becoming Theory, and modelled it after his design.

Yet, for nice-looking and consistent his system may appear, it doesn't necessarily carry the stigmates of a stronger presuasivity as opposed to alternative theories.

Hegel's Aufhebung (literally: take away and preserve by overtaking) of Immanuel Kant's discussion about the Reason (a strict relative of the Logics) is fascinating, but unpersuasive as well.

Looks like the System, the Theory of Everything, lacks one final touch: the intuition, the light that comes from the enlightening by the contact with the Gods. To say it in Nietzschean terms, Hegel is of a full Apollinean nature, being a degeneration of the traditional Dyonisiac perfection.

I'd conclude by referring the System, and the Logics, as a pragmatic tool for dealing with the phenomenic world in a series of progressive approximations; but it will only be with the addition of the Dyonisiac element that the System, let aside the Logics, could be able to approach the Metaphysics.

Thanks for reading till here!

Julius Riese > "“A side note on Abdul's interpretation of the wonderful "School of Athens": I am personally not so pessimistic about the Plato being depicted there”.

Thanks for your comment in this forum. In response, I will here confine myself to your reference of my interpretation of Raphael’s fresco.; I think there could be some misunderstanding. My interpretation of Raphael's fresco was to point out how dialectical contradictions are resolved (as perceived by Raphael) and the way such resolution leads to evolution, change, motion, development in the world. In fact the example of Plato and Aristotle has relevance to my own dialectical development in understanding natural science, particularly theoretical physics and cosmology; which is reflected in posing this question in an example posted below:

You might note that in this fresco, while Aristotle is depicted to be at the opposite end of Plato’s idealism, Aristotle at the same time is carrying “Crito” in his other hand – the very famous work of Plato, on the dialogue between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito of Alopece! This is a giveaway on how dialectical contradiction is resolved to a new development. The contents of Crito are a part of Aristotle’s new dialectical transition! In the resolution of a dialectical contradiction, both the opposites of a unity are essential and the newly evolved entity is never the victory of one over the other, but rather an aufhebung, in which both overcoming (negation) and the retention of the essential positive elements of both the opposites of the old contradiction are involved; with newly added content. Like the contradictions within a seed under favourable condition leads to the germination to a plant and the plant at maturity of the contradiction within itself gives more seeds, quality giving rise to quantity; the seed negating itself to plant and the plant in turn negating itself to more seeds – the negation of the negation.

Aristotle’s new materialism in the form of physics is not only the resolution of the contradiction and the negation of old metaphysics of Plato; it also has added dialectical contents of Heraclitus and other developed ideas. But in dialectics, the opposite development is also possible mediated by chance and necessity – like Newton’s negation of Aristotle’s physics to metaphysics as mentioned above.

The following copy of my comment from another RG forum is an example of my own developments to a relatively more credible dialectical theoretical physics and cosmology, through many years of debates (often very intense, emotional and even of personal abuse for me as a heretic!) in RG:

[Abdul Malek added an answer December 11, 2022

Dear All,

I have a personal confession to make, before I retire from this forum, which is only indirectly related to Lorentz Transforms and cosmology. In my mind, my comments and the references cited above on Lorentz Transformations and on Newton's theory of universal gravitational attraction; constitute in principle, the complete dialectical refutation (thanks primarily to Kepler, Leibniz and of course, mostly to Hegel) of the validity of the major theories of official physics and cosmology and of the ruling ideas of the established order based on these theories and causality! It is now up to humanity to transform this into real terms. In my articles on Hegel’s dialectical philosophy of “The Infinite” and of “The Philosophy of Space – Time”, I have attempted to show that the dialectical view is the exact opposite of Minkowski-Einstein “spacetime” and their opposite implications for the phenomenology of the universe. The most fundamental difference of materialist dialectics from other world views, is that for dialectics, motion is the intrinsic mode of the existence of matter and is its highest attribute.

In dialectics, the resolution of a contradiction at a critical level of its development; is never a one-sided win or loss of either of the two opposites (both of the opposites are essential). It is an aufheben; meaning that both overcoming (negation) and retention of the necessary elements of the opposites of the old contradiction and their evolving to a higher or lower level of existence. The ontological contradiction “Being-Nothing” - the primary contradiction is both the beginning and the end – beginning and end reside at the same point!

In RG, at least; I am grateful among many, to two persons, in particular: 1) Prof. Eric Lord – a noble man and a model scientist; a consistent Kantian rationalist and an honourable and credible opponent, with whom we “agreed to disagree”; and from whom I leant a lot to clear up my own understanding of physics; and 2) my long-term, most visible and engaging, passionate (even if at times bitterly personal), sincere and always frank opponent, Prof. Joachim Domsta; whose intense, subjective and motivated efforts, forced me to sharpen my own tools of opposition in response and in the process helped to advance the development of the contradiction toward its apex. This was a necessity for the aufhebung of the historical contradiction; initiated by the conflict between Newton and Leibniz in the realm of cosmology.

Thanks to all those who followed my comments, for bearing with me, with my (at times) obscure terminologies and wearisome expressions.

Best regards to all,

Abdul]

Renato Conti : Thanks for another erudite comment on Heraclitus and the stream of his dialectics flowing in the history of human thought. It's development and transformation into laws, particularly by Hegel, and its materialist version given by Marx and Engels; gives Heraclitus' dialectics its most developed form, as the greatest tool of epistemology in human history. You posted your comment, while I was typing my comment above to Julius. Had I seen your comment before, It would have made my task easier!

I take a dialectical approach to natural science and even to my personal life; because in my view dialectics is the only epistemology that can give all-round positive knowledge and wisdom. For me the stream of dialectics coming down form the brilliant intuition of Heraclitus ("Everything comes into being and passes out of existence, due to inner conflict"), mainly through Epicurus, Lucretius, Spinoza, Hegel, Marx, Engels and Lenin (mostly in practical application) forms the most scientific of any epistemology. Aristotle and Kant made made important contribution to dialectics, although their major contribution was on the other stream ("the view of understanding")

Thanks again for your historical inputs on this stream of thought.

Julius Riese > “All I am saying is: Let us not be divided by (disciplinary) lables, but let us all work together towards a common goal - to understand the world!”

Dear Julius, I would like to take this stance of you up for a discussion, which admiringly expresses a noble aim. But which, in my humble opinion can only be wishful thinking.

Because this "common goal" can come only through conformity with the established order or the status quo. But how can you accept a status quo, when metaphysics cooked-up in the brain of few famous men rules science – the vehicle for objective truth and positive knowledge? When subjective faith and ideas of one class claim to be the ideas of all and when cosmic fictions are masquerading as objective truths! When even a mighty (but honest) thinker of the establishment (of our epoch), Immanuel Kant says,” "I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith"! And when powerful economic, political and theological groups dictates the nature and the direction of scientific research. As our friend Stephen I. Ternyik rightly says, “In this sense, official science works by social group think, pressure and exclusion (e.g. from office, academic promotion and employment, exile,…).

As even the various forums in RG shows, discussion in theoretical sciences, cosmology, philosophy etc., can take place only as medieval type abstract, impotent, endless and meaningless scholasticism, based on subjective idealism of Kantian, Einsteinian, Positivist etc., logical/mathematical categories; which have no effect or unlikely to have any effect on the official science and social policies.

Modern theoretical physics and cosmology (where tangible positive knowledge is lacking) in particular, has now become a field of mind game, where any Tom, Dick, Harry and Mary can cook up in thought, their own logical categories like Kant or mathematical categories and thought experiment like Einstein; abstracted from their own or general empirical sources (phenomena); et voîla, he/she is ready to propose the "best" new or modified "theory of everything" - the pursued aim of official theoretical physics'!.

Abdul Malek

Julius Riese

I hope you both will be so kind as to forgive me for some additional, perky note on the fresco.

What would Plato and Aristotle be without Socrates? What would be left of Heraclitus (and Parmenides) if we were to forget of Socrates?

But which Socrates should we make reference to?

Plato affirms (better: makes Socrates affirm) that there was much of Heraclitean philosophy which remained incomprehensible to him - the fosterer of the Logos', the dialectics', the Reason's "power" to decrypt the World Universe.

G. Colli noted that this is to no surprise, as philosophy is the heir of the oracle and of madness. But even such a note helps very little in figuring out which Socrates we should have in mind.

If I look at Nietzsche's opinion of Socrates, I find a plebean striving to justify the tragic sense of existence through the Logos, forgetting at once the whole world of the tradition, the myth and the religion that had developed until then. But Nietzsche had an agenda of his own, needed to justify the cult of Dyonisiac intuitions.

Aristophanes, a strict friend of Socrates, no more than a sophist scoundrel immodest visionary lost in the clouds of an ironic sky (maybe from that judgment stems the motto "God save me from my froends, I'll handle my enemies").

Others think S. to be an aristocratic who realized that each men's role in the polis may only be figured out by deepening own's knowledge.

Three broadly diverging views of the same person and his legacy as published by Plato.

Socrates renders Heraclitus thought universal and widespread (maybe with some interpolations here and there). And sticks with the idea of the boy sitting at the echecquier to play, and to abide by the rules. As "The man is no more than the toy of the Gods, and that is his best feature" (Plato).

But in the fresco, Heraclitus lacks the lightness to interpret playing and abiding by the rules as a boy; he is depicted sitting, focused, far away if not even sad...

We are principally dealing with fragments of reality as Renato Conti points to; this applies to philosophy and science as commonality.

JvNeumann opined that science can only create models of reality.

Am in sync with Abdul Malek that the big-bang cosmology model is closer to philosophical metaphysics than to Copernican physics, in experimental terms of available measurement techniques.

I do see a historical sequence of: religion—philosophy—-science—-technology, with respect to the natural and dialectical evolution of human thought.

—————-—

When we talk mathematics, we may be discussing a secondary language built on the primary language of the nervous system.

— John von Neumann

Dear all,

It may be advisable for me to caution you all that another RG forum of similar theme on Einstein’s theories of relativity and initiated by me; attracted wide attention and participation from around the world and ran for about two years. But unfortunately, it became so divisive, ideologically charged and replete with foul language, ad hominem attack, lots of complains to RG and so on; that RG authorities made the unprecedented ruling to prohibit further commenting in that forum. Fortunately, RG did not delete the contents of that forum. I can now see that a kind young man totally unknown to me even today, has made a collage of only my comments in that forum and posted it on line at the following link:

https://www.muzsik.org/blog/2021/04/physics-cooked-up-in-ones-brain/

It is very nice that so far, I do not see any of the previous or new (strongly) ideologically or politically motivated contributors in this forum yet. But I would request everybody participating and commenting in this forum to be mindful of RG regulations and be within its norms; so that we can all continue to share and exchange rational views of all of us, without exception; even if strongly opposing ones. Hopefully, the discussion in this forum will lead to a better understanding of the critical issues of modern science – theoretical physics and cosmology, in particular. Thanks, Abdul

“Mathematics” and logic are a branch of philosophy where one’s wise application thereof guides science (aka repeatable observations) as scientific discovery reforms philosophy. And there is no reason why this process should ever end until the end of reason.

Everyone has their own philosophy, however, there is always room for more wisdom. Institutions of higher learning should have requirements in the study of philosophy embracing the “love of wisdom.”

Renato Conti and Stephen I. Ternyik > “We are principally dealing with fragments of reality as Renato Conti points to; this applies to philosophy and science as commonality”.

What is a great tragedy for humanity and is so outrageous; is the fact that official science is wasting enormous human, technological, social, financial, etc., resources to find the so-called “theory of everything” and thereby, according to Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, man will know “The Mind of God”. There is a two-prong approach to this enterprise – theory primarily based on “mathematical consistency” and "experimental" proof of the theories from observational and experimental “facts” and “knowledge”. The slogan is that “mathematics is the language of physics” and according to Richard Feynman “Philosophy is to physics, what ornithology is to the birds”

The theoretical cannon is nothing but revived Greek mathematical idealism of Plato et al., as Einstein categorically stated, “Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover by means of purely mathematical constructions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. … In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed” A. Einstein, “Essays in Science”, Translated by Alan Harris from “Mein Weltbild, Quedro Verlag, Amsterdam, 1933), The Wisdom Library, N.Y., p48 – 49, (1934).

All "experimental “proofs” are theory guided, contrived, motivated, conceited, deceptive etc., and are nothing but tautology - the conclusion already implicit in the premise! These all started with the fabricated “proof” of Einstein’s GR by Arthur Eddington, who reportedly, boasted something like, "experimental data are valid only when these conform to a good theory", according to the prominent physicist Steven Weinberg. It must be pointed out here that the theories of classical physics never needed any “proof”, not to speak of over more than a century and still counting! Classical theories did not need even a single "proof"; these are being proved millions of times each day through their technological practice by humanity!

But questions one might ask: Is what official science telling us positive knowledge or has any tangible meaning for humanity? Or are all these to justify the power and the credibility of the ruling system by creating awe, wonder, reverence in the general populace, the same way the myths of all rulers in past history did, in addition to brutal physical force?

Positive knowledge can only come from man’s social/historical practice of direct physical and tangible interaction with Nature and objective reality; in the form of technology, industry, in the course of the production and reproduction of real life. As even the crude saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in its eating!”

“The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question”. Karl Marx, ‘Theses on Feuerbach’

“ … The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question”. Karl Marx, ‘Theses on Feuerbach.”

Whether it is “reality or non-reality” is in the mind of the beholder and that reality is changing from birth to death. Relative to “objective truth” is one of evolution within a changing universe.

The foolish aim of modern theoretical physics and cosmology to find a "theory of everything" - the so-called final and absolute truth of the world and "position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-cracking" philosophy of modern times that give benediction to such efforts of official physics; has no meaning for humanity. Because there is no such final truth to be found in reality. Man can only find relative and progressively better approximate truth determined by the historical stage of evolution. This is what past history and the materialist dialectical perspective tells us!

The Limits of Mathematics: http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

“The perception that all the phenomena of Nature are systematically interconnected drives science to prove this interconnection throughout, both in general and in detail. But an adequate, exhaustive scientific statement of this interconnection, the formulation in thought of an exact picture of the world system in which we live, is impossible for us, and will always remain impossible. If at any time in the evolution of mankind such a final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world - physical as well as mental and historical – were brought to completion, this would mean that human knowledge had reached its limit, and, from the moment when society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical evolution would be cut short – which would be an absurd idea, pure nonsense.

Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled. But this contradiction lies not only in the nature of the two factors – the world, and man – it is also the main lever of all intellectual advance, and finds its solution continuously, day by day, in the endless progressive evolution of humanity just as for example mathematical problems find their solution in an infinite series or continued fractionations. Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker. ( Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring)

“The foolish aim of modern theoretical physics and cosmology to find a "theory of everything" - the so-called final and absolute truth of the world and "position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-cracking" philosophy of modern times that give benediction to such efforts of official physics; has no meaning for humanity.”

There is nothing “foolish” for humanity in the evolution of the sciences resulting in the evolution of philosophy. Without such drive in finding the “absolute truth” we would not enjoy our smartphones, computers, etc., in the ethical application of what we perceived to be the physical laws of nature.

And on that note, postmodern philosophy should consider the link across all religions, cultures, and ideologies which happens to be the known physical laws of nature via scientific discovery. Empirically, the ethical application of the physical laws of nature lifts the tide of the standard of living for all.

And on that note, the ethical application of the physical constructal law may expedite the evolution of global civility.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356475384_THE_SCIENCE_OF_RIGHTS

And for those of faith in the Creator who created everything including the physical laws of nature (aka the handwriting of creation) and the ethical application thereof, is the road to utopia. It’s as simple as that.

The problem with conventional metaphysical philosophy (“cobweb-spinning etc.”), to be relevant to (equally metaphysical) modern theoretical physics and cosmology is that it has to carry a big flag to be noticeable at all! At the same time, physicists think that philosophy is as relevant to them as ornithology is to the birds. They would rather say thanks, but no, thanks; for the offer of support from philosophy, murmuring like Aristophanes (quoted by Dr. Renato Conti ), "God save us from our friends, we'll handle our enemies"!

The more of the irony is that, like the official philosophers, the official theoretical physicists themselves struggle to be relevant to modern science and technology and have to take resort to holding large flags and loudspeakers in hands to be noticeable! The apology from philosophy on behalf of the physicists; would make their (physicists’) own bankruptcy even more pathetic!

Two examples in modern science would be sufficient:

1) In space exploration vehicles and astro-dynamics, the engineers use Leibniz’s vis viva equation (and not Newton's or Einstein's!) as even Wikipedia would testify: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation); and remote control or onboard intelligent navigation system; while the theoretical physicists from distance takes all the credits; loudly singing hymn to Newton and Einstein!

2) GPS is another propaganda technology for the theories of relativity by the “physicists”. The following quote from two engineer, and the YouTube video by the British “physicist” Brian Cox would show how 2/3 mm difference of the engineers, mysteriously becomes 10 km for our physicist! The two Engineers Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond DiEspositi, (of the GPS Joint Program Office), who were involved in the development of GPS, back in 1997, had to say the following in their publication. Their conclusion:

“Except for the leading γ [gamma] factor [in their final equation], it is the same formula derived in classical physics for the signal travel time from the GPS satellite to the ground station. As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result. In short there are no ‘missing relativity terms.’ They cancel out.” General Relativity Theory is not needed."

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1997ptti.conf..189F

In comparison, the following is what the shameless British “physicist” is now saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc

The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work - that is correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area. Furthermore, it must satisfy certain esthetic criteria - that is, in relation to how much it describes, it must be rather simple. (JvNeumann de Margitta).

Am in principal agreement with your elaborated view Abdul Malek of natural dialectics, critique of contemporary physical cosmology and financially monopolized scientific models of reality.

Although Copernicus (Mikołaj Kopernik; Niklas Koppernigk) was a very religious person, he came by logical and methodical observation to his heliocentric model of reality. Contrary to popular belief, the Church accepted Copernicus' heliocentric theory before a wave of Protestant opposition led the Church to ban Copernican views in the 17th century. While the Catholic Church initially accepted heliocentricity, Catholics eventually joined the wave of Protestant opposition and banned the book in 1616. The Protestant churches accepted Copernicus’ findings after more evidence emerged to support it. The Catholic Church, however, remained ground in its anti-Copernican beliefs until the 19th century. The ban on Copernicus's views was lifted in 1822, and the ban on his book until 1835. This only goes to show the complicated history of science and scientists, with respect to real cognitive progress, i.e. scientific models that match reality.

————————

There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. [Martin Luther stating his objection to heliocentrism due to his Scripture's geocentrism].

—————————

Conclusion: Cobbler, stick to your last.

Stephen I. Ternyik > “Am in principal agreement with your elaborated view Abdul Malek of natural dialectics, critique of contemporary physical cosmology and financially monopolized scientific models of reality.”

Thanks for your active and moral support Stephen I. Ternyik . This gives me some hope that scientific, rational and essentially dialectical vision (the first in human history) of the cosmos by Nicolas Copernicus (1473 – 1543 A.D.), will not be extinguished at the behest of faith and “financially monopolized scientific models of reality”, as you so pointedly assert. This vision of objective truth was forcefully negated since Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727 A.D.) in spite of the scientific and the rationalist works and objection of Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630 A.D.) and G.W. Leibniz (1646 - 1716 A.D.). Over few centuries since Newton, the myths of astrophysics and of the cosmos has only multiplied and now even consolidated as absolute truth in the form of Albert Einstein’s (1879 – 1955) theories of relativity.

My humble scientific works over the last few decades, following the leads of Kepler, Leibniz and Hegel and Hegel’s fully developed and powerful dialectical methodology, has enabled me to unveil in the form of some published reports; the flaws and the falsity of the astrophysics and cosmology that has ruled since Newton. The dialectical ‘negation of the negation’ of Copernicus' astrophysics and cosmology must be accomplished before humanity can be on the right track again in its quest for objective truth of the world.

Copy of an comment from another RG forum:

[Abdul Malek added an answer 3 minutes ago

The human scale and causality-based conservation laws of physics and ‘ex nihilo nihil fit’ of philosophy – the bugbears, have driven both towards the mystery of the primordial and single act of creation of the universe and the myths, fantasies and the fairy tales, when dealing with the non-tangible realms of the microcosm and the macrocosm. But as the quantum reality now shows, the conservation laws of physics are not valid at the microcosm of the quantum realm and this has implication for the realm of the macrocosm of the galaxies also, as everything in the universe are interconnected.

Heraclitus’ immortal intuition that everything comes into being and passes out of existence due to inner conflict; Leibniz’s far-reaching insight of vis viva in matter and Hegel’s well-developed dialectical contradiction “Being-Nothing” leading to "Becoming" and his brilliant assertion: “there can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter” – all as the same stream of dialectical thought coming down from the early Greek philosophy in fact anticipated the quantum phenomena long before it was discovered as a natural phenomena.

The recognition of antimatter and more recent developments in physics in the realms of the quantum and the cosmic, as discussed in the following RG question is a vindication of the dialectical perspective of the universe:

"Ex nihilo nihil fit“? Are You Certain Mr. Einstein and Mr. Heisenberg?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ex_nihilo_nihil_fit_Are_You_Certain_Mr_Einstein_and_Mr_Heisenberg2 ]

"New James Webb Data Suggests The”Big Bang” Never Happened, According To Some":

https://thepulse.one/2022/08/17/new-james-webb-data-suggests-thebig-bang-may-have-never-happened-according-to-some/

Friedrich Hegel and Johann Fichte, both 18th century philosophers, built upon Immanuel Kant's ideas by introducing the concept of the dialectic. This dialectic, known as the Hegelian Dialectic, posits that true understanding and knowledge are not found in a single viewpoint, but in the synthesis of opposing viewpoints. This process is characterized as a thesis-antithesis-synthesis cycle, where an initial idea (thesis) is opposed by a conflicting viewpoint (antithesis), and eventually, the two are combined to form a new understanding or idea (synthesis). This cycle is thought to repeat itself over time as new opposing viewpoints emerge and the search for truth continues.

It is important to note, the flow between opposite viewpoints is also fundamental to evolution; in the absent of diverse viewpoints, there will be no evolution.

There is Francis Bacon, a 17th century philosopher and scientist, played a significant role in the separation of philosophy and the sciences through his influential work "Novum Organum" published in 1620. In this work, Bacon presented a new approach to scientific inquiry, emphasizing the importance of observation and experimentation over traditional philosophical methods. This shift in thinking marked a turning point in the relationship between philosophy and the sciences and laid the foundation for the modern scientific method.

In the modern world, it is crucial to strengthen the connection between philosophy and the sciences, as they can mutually benefit from each other. Scientific discoveries can inform and reform philosophy, while the wisdom and guidance of philosophy can provide a valuable perspective for the advancement of science. By fostering a collaborative relationship between the two fields, we can achieve a more holistic and comprehensive understanding of the world around us.

As for the “Big Bang Never Happened” hence, the evolution of knowledge. According to Hoffman’s research, “whatever we consider true today will be driven to extinction.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

We must remember spacetime is a property of “quantum,” not the other way around. The issue is, our metrology is in spacetime trying to study quantum.

https://www.cornell.edu/video/nima-arkani-hamed-spacetime-is-doomed

Dear Michael,

I would like to thank you for alerting me/us to the highly relevant work of Donald Hoffman in this context (you already did so a couple of days ago). I have since made myself familiar with his work. His ideas are very interesting, but not uncontroversial. May I - for the moment - just add the following link to a paper Hoffman has just (January 2023) published together with two colleagues in the journal "Entropy" (the article is open-access):

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129

I am looking forward to further discussions and exchange on this.

Best,

Julius

Dear Julius Riese,

Thank you for the link. I’m familiar with Hoffman’s research and find his work inviting. Our conscious observation of dendritic, spiral, arborescent, vascularized, treelike, hierarchical configurations in spacetime, a property of “quantum,” all generated by amplituhedron and cosmological polytope relative to latest theories. It is interesting Hoffman’s model of consciousness depends on Cantor’s hierarchy of “conscious agents” using concepts from spacetime. It is also interesting Hoffman’s conscious agent diagram (P, X, D, G, A, W, see Figures 1 & 2 in Fusions of Consciousness) has symmetry to the claims of Adrian Bejan’s constructal law discovery and Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy on innate rights:

For a flow system to persist in time (to live) [Life (P,X)], it must evolve freely [Liberty(D,G)] such that it provides greater access [the pursuit of(G,A)] to its currents [Happiness, or positive feedback (W)].

https://constructal.wordpress.com/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356475384_THE_SCIENCE_OF_RIGHTS

Also, we have symmetry to the above relative to Euler’s number and identity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z_nBB7ZC9Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89P89BxRK4c

It seems we are working with illusions in spacetime to solve a puzzle that transcends spacetime. Within this puzzle or perhaps, the matrix for a better term, as long as we have the freedom in the wise application of those illusions in the evolution to benefit humanity.

The copy of a comment from a theoretical physics forum:

[Abdul Malek added an answer 3 minute ago

Stephen Jarvis : In dialectics, a single unity must have two opposites within it (the law of the interpenetration of the opposites, like the quarks in QCD), in a contradiction and none of the two opposites can become isolated, absolute or supreme compared to the other. When one tendency gets close to gaining supremacy (violating the law of dialectics) a resolution of the contradiction happens through a sudden or catastrophic collapse of the whole unit in what Hegel called "aufhebung" (the law of "the negation of the negation) in which both overcoming (negation) and the retention of the essential positive elements of both the opposites of the old contradiction are involved; with newly added content. This whole catastrophic and discrete process (not continuous) is how the original contradiction is resolved giving rise to dialectical change, motion, evolution, development etc., in Nature, Life, Society and Thought. Everything develops through discrete leaps. So there is no mega leap (like "Big Bang" creation) in the universe, precisely because, the universe is made entirely of infinite leaps!

The reason I said all these above is to describe the developments in theoretical physics and cosmology as well. The process of the resolution of the contradiction between classical physics and quantum physics; the contradiction of the concept of a finite and infinite universe; the contradiction between the concept of incomplete and complete ("theory of everything") knowledge of the universe; are in rapid progress in our epoch and before our eyes!

As I said before the JWST was intended to seal the deal for a "Big Bang" created finite universe, but the cunning tricks of dialectics is bringing the exact opposite of what was intended for! The same way in particle physics, the LHC was supposed to seal the deal for a "theory of everything"; but what it is getting instead? Total bankruptcy of official theoretical physics!

Dialectics, thy name is the ruler of the infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe, from the cosmic to the quantum!

The following is the copy of another comment relevant to this forum:

[Abdul Malek added an answer 54 minutes ago

Stephen Jarvis > "so you have an understanding of history regarding dialectic materialism"

If you depend on Wikipedia as a source of knowledge on dialectical materialism or anything else for that matter, then, I have no hope for you!

You causality-based "scientists" do not realize that causality, through iteration and in a deterministic way leads to a "First Cause" - the "Effect" of a "Cause", which is unknown or unknowable - a mystery like God for theology and "Big Bang" for you "physicists"! The priests are smarter than you "physicists"; they start top down from the mystery and you "physicists" start bottom up and through thousands of years of hard and tedious labour, empirical search ('Hypotheses non fingo') etc., finally reach the same God like our smart priests!

But if you believe in "Big Bang" , expanding universe, dark matter/energy etc., ad nauseum; you have to accept God's hand. Because cosmic expansion based on redshifts clearly shows "God's Fingers"!

See what Halton (Chip) Arp - the Galileo of modern times has to say on this:

https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe

If you start from a mystery or end up in a mystery; all you have done in the intermediate steps is nothing but mystery! Before the JWST shock (a concrete finding) that you yourself raised through the reference you cited, you "physicists" even in this thread were engaged in endless and abstract world of scholasticism. The findings of JWST brings you "physicists" down to earth. And only now you can talk about science and see the power of materialist dialectics that I was talking about, all these decades in and outside RG!]

The materialist dialectic is associated with the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and is central to Marxist theory. It emphasizes the importance of understanding how the economic and social structure of society shapes our ideas, culture, and political systems, and how these systems effect society.

The scientific method is a way of understanding the physical universe through observations, experimentations, and logical reasoning in the discovery of laws in nature.

While the two methods share some similarities relative to the science of observation. However, they are primarily different fields of study and have different goals and objectives. The scientific method is primarily used in the physical sciences, while the materialist dialectic is primarily used in the social sciences and the study of history.

However, the common link between social systems and the physical universe is evolution, the Constructal paradigm:

https://constructal.wordpress.com/

Since this forum involves a radical departure and opposition to conventional and official theoretical physics and cosmology and its suggested replacement and/or improvement (where necessary) with new dialectics-based physics; I wish to post here, my significant comments of discussion at the highest level of modern theoretical physics and cosmology in RG. Hope someone following this forum might find some interest in my views: Thanks to everyone following these comments, Abdul

[Abdul Malek added an answer 2 hours ago

Stefano Quattrini and Halim Boutayeb : The idea of mysterious “Hidden momentum, field momentum, and electromagnetic impulse” in the referred publication by David Babson et.al., and the conclusion, “What can be said about the nature of hidden momentum in general? It seems to share three general features: • It is purely mechanical”; brings me back to this forum.

The idea that the “Hidden Momentum” is mechanical (or kinetic) even if arising in the context of electromagnetism or other possible phenomena; points to its universal nature. My question is: could it be that the “Hidden Momentum” (since it is of mechanical nature) somehow related to Leibniz’s living force or viz viva and the old debate about momentum between Cartesian mechanics (followed by Newton and Einstein) and Leibnizian one as shown in the following passage from a publication:

“The essential difference [3.4] between dialectical physics and official (Newtonian/Einsteinian) physics involve the following issues: .... the difference between conserved momentum as mv of Descartes or mv^2 of Leibniz; the difference between purely mechanical motion and Vis Viva; the ontological questions of matter and motion etc., plus lots of deep “thinking-thought” (philosophy) not just ordinary thought used in good old common sense, formal logic and mathematics – the pabulum of official physics.

Only in terrestrial classical mechanics; the two approaches roughly (but not exactly) correspond, but in the extraterrestrial macrocosm and the quantum microcosm the two approaches vary widely and in fact quite the opposite of each other. Vis Viva is active in terrestrial mechanics, but not apparent, as it is dominated by earth’s gravity and is dissipated either as heat (in friction) or in the internal structure of matter (as Hidden Momentum of Babson et al.?). The following symbols apply: r = distance, t = time, v = velocity, G, M, m has the usual meaning. A. Momentum and force:

Descartes: force x t = mv; applies anywhere in the universe

Leibniz: force x r = mv^2; subdued on a cosmic body like earth, but is more forceful in outer space and quantum level of the microcosm.

Ratio: mv^2/mv = v (Vis Viva), which represents the extra v term in Leibnizian momentum, centrifugal force etc.

Question: Could this be Hidden Momentum!

The contribution by me above is a part of my publication "

Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

The forum in which this discussion is taking place is at the following link:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Were_some_scientists_right_in_showing_that_the_Lorentz_Force_brings_to_a_paradox

Copy of a comment in another forum relevant to this one; for those who might be interested:

[Abdul Malek added an answer 7 minutes ago

Halim Boutayeb > “I also arrived to the conclusion that the theory of electromagnetism needs to be improved in many aspects and we probably need to revisits the fundamentals”.

The fundamentals of anything in the universe must involve the question of matter and motion. The vis viva of Leibniz that I mentioned to you before, is a fundamental issue of objective reality. Because, for dialectics, motion is the intrinsic mode of existence of matter and there can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter. There is a fundamental difference between the momentum of Descartes and Leibniz as shown in the following equation.

Descartes: force x t = mv; applies anywhere in the universe

Leibniz: force x r = mv^2; subdued on or near the surface of a cosmic body like earth, but is more forceful in outer space.

This difference shows up very clearly in the case of planetary system. As correctly pointed out by Dr. Hrvoje Dodig , there is no “time” (and hence no motion) for Newton’s one-sided theory of universal gravitational attraction. In his expression of the gravitational potential GM/r; only fixed position of the planet in assumed in circular orbit (violating Kepler’s 2 laws) in a line joining with the sun was considered; hence the question of centrifugal force (asserted by Leibniz) was not considered and modern physicists including Einstein still thinks this way and derides Leibniz’s vis viva and centrifugal force as abstract philosophy!

As I have shown in the following articles, mathematical idealism based esoteric theories of Newton and Einstein and the denial of the vis viva of Leibniz has led to the evermore new mysteries and crisis in modern cosmology. A scientific consideration of Kepler’s all three laws (Newton only used the 3rd one), Leibniz’s vis viva and Hegel’s ideas of space, time, matter and motion, leads to the concept of gravitation as a dialectical contradiction, mediated by chance and necessity and by other fundamental forces of Nature, like electromagnetism etc.. This dialectical contradiction is contrary to Newton's universal attraction and to the “spacetime” unity of Minkowski and Einstein. The dialectical concept leads to a gravitational potential, totally different and in essence opposite from that of Newton or Einstein, as shown below”

EP = m (a/r^3 -GM/r - Cr^2),

where a, G, and C are constants, m is the mass of a planet and r is its distance from the sun, of mass M. Please see:

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas"

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology":

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

This proposed gravitational potential abolishes all question of Big Bang creation and the additional ones arising from Einstein’s theories of relativity like superluminal inflation, expansion, black holes, dark matter/energy; time dilation, length contraction, Twin etc., paradoxes, including the one discussed in this forum. It is very unfortunate that the dependence on mathematical idealism and the esoteric theories of modern physics and cosmology, have led the modern theoretical physicists to futile and endless scholastic debates like the medieval priests. This scholasticism is based on Einsteinian/Kantian subjective idealism of abstract mathematical/logical categories and is groping in the darkness of a blind alley. I fully agree with Dr. Hrvoje Dodig and you that physics must "revisits the fundamentals” and re-evaluate Newton’s theory of universal gravitation if it has to make any progress at all!

In contrast to the esoteric theories of gravity of Newton and Einstein, Maxwell’s theory arose out of social/historical practice and have led to incredible range of technologies, with its new extension to QED. So, Maxwell’s physics has a very real basis in objective reality, indeed and is a true scientific theory. But any theory, no matter how close it is to reality, can never exactly model reality and is always subject to further refinement in the course of further progress of empirical knowledge. My reference to Leibniz’s vis viva in the context if the discovery of “Hidden Momentum” in electromagnetism; might involve such a refinement of Maxwell’s equation.]

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Were_some_scientists_right_in_showing_that_the_Lorentz_Force_brings_to_a_paradox/59

Continuation of the previous comment:

[Abdul Malek added an answer 14 hours ago

Dear All,

I am thankful to Prof. Domsta for repeatedly drawing attention and interest in my publication on Lorentz Transform (LT), in effect emphasizing its great importance! I am also very glad to see the enthusiastic acceptance of this publication, by the High Energy Physics (HEP) community dealing with particle accelerators around the world and represented by "INSPIRE".

To my credit, I must say that my publication, for the first time (to my knowledge) in history, found a geometrical route to the formulation of LT and showed that the “spacetime” of Minkowski/Einstein, in fact is an abstract geometrical construct based on the geometrical formulation of LT as deduced in my publication. It was also shown that this abstract geometrical construct supposedly with tangible material, mechanical, metrical etc., attributes have absolutely no basis in objective reality. In contrast, and as opposed to “spacetime” unity of the theories of relativity, a dialectical and quantum electrodynamical (QED) perspective of the ontology of objective reality is also proposed for the first time, as an extension and improvement on Hegel’s dialectical philosophy of space and time.

Whether the criticism of Einstein’s mathematical derivation of LTs referred in my publication is valid or not is a secondary issue altogether and totally irrelevant to the main contribution in my publication. Omitting the section of the criticism (which may be debated) of Einstein’s mathematical derivation of LTs discussed in the publication, will have no impact on the veracity and the profound merit of this historically important publication!

In Einstein’s own work itself, referred to in my publication; he admirably described the relation between an axiomatic and geometry-based theory like SR and GR and objective reality, in the following quote from his work:

“Geometry sets out from certain conceptions such as "plane," "point," and "straight line," with which we are able to associate more or less definite ideas, and from certain simple propositions (axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas, we are inclined to accept as "true”. Then, on the basis of a logical process, the justification of which we feel ourselves compelled to admit, all remaining propositions are shown to follow from those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A proposition is then correct ("true") when it has been derived in the recognized manner from the axioms. The question of "truth" of the individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one of the “truths” of the axioms. Now it has long been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning … The concept "true" does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because by the word "true" we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a "real" object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves” Albert Einstein; Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Methuen & Co. Ltd. 1952.

As far as I understand from my long discussion; Prof. Eric Lord (from whom I learnt a lot about the theories of relativity), said exactly the same thing. For (consistently Kantian) Prof. Lord; the merit of the theories (like SR and GR) or models, depend on their internal self-consistency. Whether or not these theories correspond to objective reality has to be judged through their practice, valid (unbiased) experimental proof etc.]

This was in response to the following comment by a Professor of mathematics:

[Joachim Domsta added an answer 2 days ago

Dear All

The double error by @Abdul Malek is made as follows:

FIRST he infers from validity of an equation of a straight line like

1.0. a= mu * b

that

-- 1.1. the equality 1.0 holds for a=b=0 (correctly)

and that therefore

-- 1.2. mu =0/0 (incorrectly)

NEXT he suggests that Einstein (and followers) have based the derivation of the Lorentz transformation upon the ABDUL MALEK OBVIOUSLY WRONGLY JUSTIFIED conclusion 1.2, which is NEVER used in the papers on relativity.

It is a very ugly illogical way of any dispute which therefore becomes NONSCIENTIFIC and not worth any merital continuation.]

I like Hoffman’s take on the subject of “truth,” that is, whatever we consider true today will be driven to extinction via evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

The philosophy of Thomas Kuhn, delt with the evolution of science where he coined the phrase “paradigm shift”:

http://www.turkpsikiyatri.org/arsiv/kuhn-ssr-2nded.pdf

It seems evolution is the “reality” we live in. And on that note, even our understanding of evolution evolves, from Darwin to Bejan for example:

https://ia802307.us.archive.org/4/items/originofspecies00darwuoft/originofspecies00darwuoft_bw.pdf

https://constructal.wordpress.com/

Evolution in social systems:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356475384_THE_SCIENCE_OF_RIGHTS

And on that note, there is no reason why our evolution for the truth should ever end, until the end of reason.

The following is the copy of a new response to a comment shown below this response in another RG forum; involving a tense debate on the theories of modern physics.

[ Abdul Malek added an answer 2 hours ago

"Propagating false statements is unacceptable":

"Dialectics Not Metaphysics Of Nature: From The Quantum To The Cosmic":

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0BF5W9Q1N?asin=B0BF5W9Q1N&revisionId=9ebf1d7b&format=1&depth=1

"Newton gave physics an express warning to beware of metaphysics, it is true; but to his own honour, be it said, he did not obey his own warning”. Hegel, G.W.F]

In response to:

[ Joachim Domsta added an answer 2 days ago

Propagating false statements is unacceptable, Mr. Abdul Malek. Your long response about nothing or with couple of useless tales principally cannot disprove applicability of mathematics in correct description and using and predicting real phenomena. Reason: the language and means of your dialectics are too poor for sufficiently appropriate expressing the complicated multilevel multinested relations between the real objects. Mathematics is the well doing tool for mutual communicating the observed and guessed events around us.

Your non-distinguishing between an equation and the SET of object fulfilling it is a simple evidence that you are not prepared to judge what is a correct proof of a simple implication where the SET (here the mathematically formulated light cones) not a simple pair of numbers fulfilling the equation play the role of objects of logical inference.

Therefore in particular you cannot be treated seriously when you say that a very well verified SRT is based on a logical error. It sounds rather like a joke than a scientific statement.]

Metaphysics comes under beliefs (or not for the matter). Religions, beliefs, and convictions, all fall under the principle of "Freedom of Conscience", subjective by definition and thus valid for each one himself, thus subjective but at the same time, is one of the universal human rights; Physics is rational science, by definition objective, therefore universal, valid for all.

Dear friends,

I am pleased to share with you the following "Preliminary Abstract", which I have sent in response to an invitation from the “World Conference on Physics and Mathematics” which is all set to take place during May 22-23, 2023, at Berlin, Germany. I have to wait and see how things would develop.

[The Limit and Other Ontological Questions of Space, Time, Matter and Motion of the Universe - A Rethink

The findings of James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) so far have put to serious questions the accepted epistemology of modern physics on these issues. The modern view of a finite universe and all of its contents created through a singular “Big Bang” event about 13.7 billion years ago; is the result of the development of the theories of physics since at least Isaac Newton and brought to somewhat of a finality through Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity. The findings of JWST and some other unresolved issues such as “dark matter”, “dark energy”, “inflation” etc. of modern cosmology puts into serious doubt, its whole paradigm and requires a rethink.

The dispute about the question of a finite or infinite universe is raging from the early Greeks. Christian theology with its faith in a God-created finite universe enforced its doctrine even with violence. Physics, guided by the same world-view of causality and formal logic as theology; also faced the same mystery of a “First Cause” for the universe and more or less accepted the theological view, which culminated in the Big Bang theory of the modern times, which was supposed to be confirmed by the GWST probe. Meanwhile, based on the idea of limit (and the self-limited) of Spinoza and his own dialectical method, G.W.F. Hegel revived the idea of infinity and provided a rational basis for comprehending the infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe; but has been ignored by physics so far.

The mystery of a created universe also included the question of the origin of space, time, matter and motion – the fundamental attributes of the universe and the subjects of investigation with which physics was grappling for hundreds of years, without much headway. The recognition of the previously unthinkable quantum phenomena by the turn of the 20th century brought in even more confusion and despair for physics; because of the breakdown of its epistemology of causality, expressed candidly by Einstein the following way: “Many physicists maintain - and there are weighty arguments in their favour – that in the face of these facts (quantum mechanical), not merely the differential law, but the law of causation itself - hitherto the ultimate basic postulate of all natural science – has collapsed”. A. Einstein, “Essays in Science”, p. 38-39 (1934).

Philosophy, independently of physics, already faced the similar crisis in its causality-based epistemology by the time of David Hume and Immanuel Kant. The crisis was so severe that to save causality, Kant declared objective reality (the subject of philosophy and physics) to be an unknowable thing-in-itself. Kant warned philosophy to abate its claim of any knowledge of the noumena (ontology) of the universe. The only thing philosophy can do according to Kant; is to develop its subjective logical categories to organize and to deal only with the phenomenology of objective reality that man perceives through his senses. Faced with the quantum uncertainty in physics, Einstein adopted Kant’s subjective idealism; to develop his ideal mathematical categories; which he tried to impose not only on the phenomena as Kant did, but also on the noumena that Kant warned against! Einstein’s efforts on the one hand raised the false hope for physics, that a mathematically conceived theory of everything of the universe is within its reach and at the same time have given rise to enormous confusion and the proliferation fictitious objects and processes, beyond man’s tangible and positive knowledge in terrestrial Nature.

Attempts will be made in this presentation to show on the one hand, that Kepler’s elliptical orbits of the planets and Leibniz’s vis viva of motion already refuted Newton’s theory of universal gravitational attraction wrongly based on a perfectly circular orbits of the planets in the solar system. Hegel’s dialectical method later pointed out the defect at the root of Newton’s causality-based epistemology and the mathematical idealism of his theories of physics; when he said, “Newton gave physics an express warning to beware of metaphysics, it is true; but to his own honor, be it said, he did not obey his own warning”. And on the other, Hegel’s philosophy of Space and Time already, albeit in a very obscure way anticipated the quantum phenomena long before its discovery. It would also be shown that Hegel’s view of space and time is in direct conflict with Minkowski-Einstein 4D abstract geometrical “spacetime” manifold as the ontological basis; which would have profound implications for modern astrophysics and cosmology. Hegel’s dialectical method therefore may offer valuable intuition, insight and practical help in dealing with the problems of modern theoretical physics and cosmology.

References:

1. The Limits of Mathematics: http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

2. The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein’s Theories of Relativity and cosmology: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

3. KEPLER – NEWTON – LEIBNIZ – HEGEL Portentous And Conflicting Legacies In Theoretical Physics, Cosmology And In Ruling Ideas https://www.rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9106

4. The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion? https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/163

5. Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies : http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

6. The Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena: http://www.ptep-online.com/2014/PP-39-03.PDF]

This is an outstanding paper [1] by Dyson Freeman (1996) "The Scientist As Rebel" where one may read (page 802) "...The progress of science requires the growth of understanding in both directions, downward from the whole to the parts and upward from the parts to the whole. A reductionist philosophy, arbitrarily proclaiming that the growth of understanding must go only in one direction, makes no scientific sense. Indeed, dogmatic philosophical beliefs of any kind have no place in science. Science in its everyday practice is much closer to art than to philosophy. When I look at Godel's proof of his undecidability theorem, I do not see a philosophical argument. The proof is a soaring piece of architecture, as unique and as lovely as Chartres cathedral... "

[1] Dyson, F. (1996). The scientist as rebel. The American mathematical monthly, 103(9), 800-805.

Copy of a comment (of possible interest) from a theoretical physics thread:

[Abdul Malek added an answer 12 hours ago

Isaac Newton negated the Copernican revolution and suppressed dialectical physics at the behest of the Imperial State, theology and metaphysics, which Albert Einstein perfected with the help of monopoly capitalism and the Vatican. The present revival of dialectical physics is the negation of the negation of the Copernican revolution and a point of departure for natural science!

1. "KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas"

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

2. "The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein’s Theories of Relativity and cosmology": https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

3. “Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology!”

Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

https://www.amazon.com/Books-Dr-Abdul-Malek/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ADr.+Abdul+Malek]

The developments in natural science, especially the recognition of the quantum phenomena brought an end (in principle) to the historic conflict between the dialectics of Heraclitus (544 – 483 B.C.) and the Oneness (God) of Parmenides (515 – 450 B.C.); in favour of dialectics. God now either has to play with dice or retire Himself to oblivion. The "Evil Quanta" also demolished all hiding places of mysteries, which the opportunists and the charlatans had been using for so long to their advantage.

The expropriation of natural science by monopoly capitalism and theology is coming to an end with the demand for the expropriation of the expropriators. Worldwide awakening, concern and activism (specially among the youth) against global warming and anthropogenic impact is the first step out (and historically the last) of the alienation of man by Capital and towards his increasing freedom of the will.

IMHO, it is not suitable to mix Science and Belief, Natural and Supranatural, Physics and Metaphysics, Chemistry and Alchemy, Rational and Irrational... Moreover, it is destructive for the critical spirit of young people to make amalgams between scientific discourse and non-scientific and/or pseudo-scientific; and/or sophistical speeches. On the contrary, it is necessary, and it is our duty, to always specify to them the line of demarcation between SCIENCE and other intellectual activities. Read more on this necessary demarcation within this remarkable philosophical thinking:

Science/non-science and boundary work, January 2007, In book: The Blackwell Encyclopedia of SociologyEdition: 1stChapter: science/non-science and boundary workPublisher: Wiley-BlackwellEditors: George Ritzer, Available on:

Chapter Science/Non‐science and Boundary Work

I heard somewhere that Metaphysics are scrolls Aristotle kept on the shelf next to those of Physics.

This paper [1] by Onyeukaziri (2023) argues (see conclusion) that "By a metaphysical exposition of action and agency, a thing could be said to either have autonomy or not. So, I argue here that by autonomy per se, AIs, since they are not free agents, cannot be said to have autonomy. Hence, when the term "autonomy" is used with respect to AI, it is used simply metaphorically. So, in my line of thought, I do not accept "degrees" of autonomy as "non-autonomous," "semi-autonomous," and fully autonomous" agents, as suggested by some scholars".

[1] Onyeukaziri, J. N. (2023). Action and Agency in Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Critique., Philosophia: International Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 24, Number 1, January 2023

Available on:

https://philarchive.org/archive/ONYAAA

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362164412_Stories_on_Life

What distinguishes "Physics" and "Metaphysics" is fundamentally analogous to what distinguishes "Scientific thinking" from "Other Intellectual Activities". However, "The problem of demarcation – how to identify the unique and essential characteristics of science that distinguish it from other intellectual activities – has been addressed both as an analytical matter mainly by philosophers and epistemologists and as a practical matter by sociologists and historians".

See more on this necessary demarcation within this remarkable philosophical thinking:

Science/non-science and boundary work, January 2007, In book: The Blackwell Encyclopedia of SociologyEdition: 1stChapter: science/non-science and boundary workPublisher: Wiley-BlackwellEditors: George Ritzer, Available on:

Chapter Science/Non‐science and Boundary Work

"A Brief History of Time is ‘wrong’, Stephen Hawking told collaborator"

So, created universe is no more! New venture to make few more million bucks, with a reverse mythology!!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/mar/19/stephen-hawking-told-me-ive-changed-my-mind-my-book-is-wrong

[“Stephen and I discovered how physics itself can disappear back into the big bang. Not the laws as such but their capacity to change has the final word in our theory. This sheds a new light on what cosmology is ultimately about.” According to Hertog, the new perspective that he has achieved with Hawking reverses the hierarchy between laws and reality in physics and is “profoundly Darwinian” in spirit. “It leads to a new philosophy of physics that rejects the idea that the universe is a machine governed by unconditional laws with a prior existence, and replaces it with a view of the universe as a kind of self-organising entity in which all sorts of emergent patterns appear, the most general of which we call the laws of physics.”]

Copy from a forum on theoretical physics: [Abdul Malek added an answer

3 days ago

Wolfgang Konle > “A philosophy of space and time is not what we need. We need a full understanding of space and time.”

Yes, of course; we need Einsteinian fantasy “thought experiments", a parasitic priestly scribe engaged in never-ending scholastic discourse on the "thought experiments" and a similarly parasitic groups of charlatans “proving” the existence of the Big/Black/Dark Cosmic Monsters “discovered” by the “thought experiments". Both groups thriving on the enormous cost of social resources! Yes, this is the only way we will get “the full understanding of space and time”, indeed!

“From the macrocosm to the microcosm, natural science has so far confirmed the most fundamental assertion of materialist dialectics that there can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter. This view of the objective reality is in sharp conflict with the one proposed by Albert Einstein in his theory of General Relativity (GR). According to Einstein, ―Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high‖(1). This article offers a dialectical perspective of the internal dynamics of Space-Time-Matter-Motion of the infinite universe, mediated by the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. It is at the same time a refutation of the finite, non-material and abstract four dimensional spacetime geometric manifold as the ontological basis of objective reality, proposed by Minkowski and Einstein."

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

“Does 4-dimensional space-time of Albert Einstein have any ontological reality to which empirical concepts of dimension, quality, quantity, measure etc. apply? Or are space and time only abstract thought objects that have circumlocutory meaning only in the context of matter in uninterrupted motion? What is primary - Mind or Matter? Stasis or Dynamis? This book tries to seek answers to these questions.”

https://www.amazon.ca/Einsteinian-Universe-Dialectical-Perspective-Theoretical/dp/9840418254

Any “self-organizing” entity in physics presupposes tacitly Consciousness whereof physics ignores all about. Therefore, “self-organization“ “explains” strictly nothing! See instead Structure wave theory on RG yielding a structural analysis of Consciousness.

"Empirical natural science has accumulated such a tremendous mass of positive material for knowledge that the necessity of classifying it in each separate field of investigation systematically and in accordance with its inner inter-connection has become absolutely imperative. It is becoming equally imperative to bring the individual spheres of knowledge into the correct connection with one another. In doing so, however, natural science enters the field of theory and here the methods of empiricism will not work, here only theoretical thinking can be of assistance. But theoretical thinking is an innate quality only as regards natural capacity. This natural capacity must be developed, improved, and for its improvement there is as yet no other means than the study of previous philosophy."

Works of Frederick Engels 1878 “The Old Preface to Anti-Dühring”

On Dialectics

“Science Wars – A Pox on both their Houses.”

Copy from a physics forum: [Abdul Malek added an answer 1 hour ago

Causality-based scholasticism (no positive knowledge can come out of it, because it starts or ends in the mystery of a "First Cause") is a good pastime if one has nothing else useful to do. Medieval priests enjoyed it in facilities provided by the Church. Modern priests do it thanks to RG.

But "theoretical scholasticism" does not advance positive knowledge even by a micrometer, beyond everyday life experience and practice in technology! We see the same words and equations with which the participants started in this forum and continue for years like repeated mantra, without any change! But to what end is this intra- and inter-discipline debate? Asked by a physicist:

“Science Wars – A Pox on both their Houses.” :https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368660290_The_Science_Wars_a_pox_on_both_their_houses ]

Speaking of Science Wars: About the so-called "Water Memory". This preprint (2023) by Beauvais [1] comes to the conclusion, "we have seen in this article how simple considerations based on probability theory lead to describe non-classical correlations involving the experimenter. This probabilistic modelling allows to propose an alternative explanation to Benveniste’s experiments where water plays no role and where the place of the experimenter is central. All aspects of Benveniste’s experiments are taken into account in this modelling, including the weird stumbling block. This obstacle prevented proving the causal relationship between the information supposedly stored in water and the corresponding “effect” observed on the biological system"

[1] BEAUVAIS, F. Benveniste’s Experiments and the So-Called “Water Memory” Phenomenon: an Example of Serendipity?. Preprints 2023, 2023010155. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202301.0155.v2.

Available on:

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202301.0155/download/final_file

The Infinite and other ontological questions of Space, Time, Matter and Motion of the Universe, form the subject matter for scientific and philosophical investigation. The recent findings of James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) finally have put to serious questions; the accepted causality-based epistemology of modern physics and philosophy on these issues. The modern view of a finite universe and all of its contents created through a singular “Big Bang” event about 13.7 billion years ago; is the result of the development of the theories of physics since at least Isaac Newton and brought to somewhat of a supposed finality through Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity. The findings of JWST and some other unresolved issues such as “Big Bang” creation, “dark matter”, “dark energy”, “black hole”, “inflation” etc. in the realm of the macrocosm and the supposed paradoxes of the quantum phenomena in the microcosm, put into serious doubt the whole paradigm of modern science and requires a rethink of the philosophy of science.

In the following journal publications, this author claimed scientific, mathematical and philosophical refutation of the theories of gravitation of both Newton and Einstein. While Newton’s theory is deemed to be defective; Einstein’s theories of relativity has been shown to have no relevance to objective reality.

"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology"

INSPIRE: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

“"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas"

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

A dialectical materialist perspective of objective reality and of an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe; in opposition to the present metaphysical world view of official theoretical physics and cosmology is presented in the following work:

"Dialectics Not Metaphysics Of Nature: From The Quantum To The Cosmic":

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0BF5W9Q1N?asin=B0BF5W9Q1N&revisionId=9ebf1d7b&format=1&depth=1

The following is review by a follower of a RG forum on Einstein's theories of relativity, now closed by a RG ruling (after running for about two years)!:

Muzsik, J. “Physics cooked up in ones brain”, https://www.muzsik.org/blog/2021/04/physics-cooked-up-in-ones-brain/

A Note: I am thankful to Mr. Jerry Muzsik (apparently a bright young man, whom I never knew and have no contact with, even now), who in his essay gave a reasonable (even if not a thorough) representation of my views on modern physics and philosophy; in his own creative, articulate and artful way.

On scientific conjecture and falsification: A "fact", to be qualified as "scientific fact" must come under "universal knowledge", which even if it does not represent the "true truth" has not yet been falsified. Einstein remarks that “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” Your disagreement with this, if that is the case, serves to confirm my conclusion that you are stating a philosophical opinion, not a fact"

Since ancient times scientists have tried to express physical reality using mathematical formulations. Science teaches us that the physical reality is uncertain, because by definition falsifiable, the mathematical formulations, which are supposed to express them, are just as much. Hence the first part of Einstein's quote "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain"

The fact remains that, apart from the physical reality that the mathematical formulations are supposed to represent, mathematics has nothing uncertain. Indeed, if mathematics is abstracted from any interpretation relating to falsifiable physical reality, they become certain. this is what I understand from the second part of the quote "and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"

Plato spent his life and sacrificed it developing logic to oppose irrational sophistical discourse. I refer to this well-known and well-quoted article [1] Where one may read pages 481-482 " ....It is well known," says Mazzoni, "that Plato believed that mathematics was quite particularly appropriate for physical investigations, which was the reason why he himself had many times resorted to it for the explanation of physical mysteries. But Aristotle held a quite different view and he explained the errors of Plato by his too-great attachment to mathematics." ... the dividing line, between the Aristotelian and the Platonist is perfectly clear. If you claim for mathematics a superior status, if more than that you attribute to it a real value and a commanding position in Physics, you are a Platonist. If on the contrary, you see in mathematics an abstract science, which is therefore of a lesser value than those-physics and metaphysics-which deal with real being; if in particular you pretend that physics needs no other basis than experience and must be built directly on perception, that mathematics has to content itself with the secondary and subsidiary role of a mother auxiliary, you are an Aristotelian."

Today there are still internationally renowned mathematicians among them Fields medalists who call themselves Platonist or Aristotelian. But none of them claimed that maths applies to metaphysics. Like Plato, All of them believe that mathematics is only appropriate for physical investigations.

[1] Galileo and Plato, Author(s): Alexandre Koyré ]Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Oct., 1943, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Oct., 1943), p. 400-428

Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press https://www.jstor.org/stable/2707166

Physics is a branch of science that deals with the study of matter, energy, and the fundamental laws of the natural world. It aims to understand and explain the behavior of the physical universe through observation, experimentation, and mathematical modeling. Physics explores various aspects of the universe, including motion, forces, energy, electricity, magnetism, light, and the structure of atoms and subatomic particles.

On the other hand, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with fundamental questions about the nature of reality, existence, causality, and the relationship between mind and matter. It goes beyond the physical and empirical aspects of the world and explores concepts such as being, identity, time, space, consciousness, and the nature of reality itself. Metaphysics seeks to understand the underlying principles and fundamental nature of existence, often through speculative and philosophical inquiry rather than empirical observation and experimentation.

While physics focuses on the empirical study of the physical world and its laws, metaphysics explores questions that go beyond the scope of empirical science and often delves into abstract and conceptual realms. Both disciplines seek to understand the nature of reality, but they approach it from different perspectives and employ different methods of investigation.